I've made no changes since the last time I've mentioned it here on the list
(when the BIP procedures were being discussed).
The last changes are:
01-10-2013 - Expanded the salt to be prefix + date + checksum and renamed
'master seed' to 'root key'.
24-07-2013 - Added user selectable KDF + para
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Jean-Paul Kogelman
wrote:
>
> I added a 2 byte 'weeks since 2013-01-01' field and updated the prefixes,
> ranges and test vectors.
>
> The updated proposal lives here:
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=258678
Greetings. Any recent progress on this?
Do we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/15/13 5:19 PM, Drak wrote:
> Maybe, but again from the user's perspective they pay someone, and
> they receive money - just like you do with paypal using an email
> address. The technical bits in the middle dont matter to the user
> and trying to
On 16 November 2013 01:10, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:41:56 AM Drak wrote:
> > So "a payment clears after one confirmation, but you might want to wait
> > until the payment has been confirmed n times".
> > Then at least you are not using the same word for two different mea
On Nov 15, 2013, at 05:10 PM, Luke-Jr wrote:On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:41:56 AM Drak wrote:So "a payment clears after one confirmation, but you might want to waituntil the payment has been confirmed n times".Then at least you are not using the same word for two different meaningsand you're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/15/13 4:41 PM, Drak wrote:
> For years, people had a problem with "email address", instead
> using "email number" but they got there eventually. Most people
> nowadays use "email address" So "payment address" or "bitcoin
> address" make better s
On Saturday, November 16, 2013 12:41:56 AM Drak wrote:
> So "a payment clears after one confirmation, but you might want to wait
> until the payment has been confirmed n times".
> Then at least you are not using the same word for two different meanings
> and you're using stuff more familiar in popu
On 14 November 2013 23:01, Luke-Jr wrote:
> I wonder if it might make sense to bundle some other terminology fixups at
> the
> same time.
>
A very good idea.
> Right now, Bitcoin-Qt has been using the term "confirmations" (plural) to
> refer to how many blocks deep a transaction is buried. We
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:11:34AM -0800, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> > Now interpret the bits of that UUID as an allowed path: 0 = left, 1
> > = right, from the top of the tree. When you build the tree, make
> > sure everything that is going to be committed to uses it's allowed
> > path; the tree wi
I don't use testnet much anymore, partly because it sometimes kind of
breaks like this. It's a public resource and people sometimes abuse it.
You can create your own local network with -regtest and that lets you mint
new blocks instantly. It's a much simpler way to do testing and app
development.
It appears that someone is minting new blocks literally every couple of
seconds on the testnet chain right now.
You can see it on both blockexplorer:
http://blockexplorer.com/testnet
and also btclook:
http://testnet.btclook.com/
Is this something we should worry about?
thanks,
Mike
---
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:47:46PM +0100, Michael Gronager wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 15/11/13, 11:32 , Peter Todd wrote:
>
> > alpha = (1/113)*600s/134kBytes = 39.62uS/byte = 24kB/second
> >
> > Which is atrocious...
>
> alpha = P_fork*t_block/S = 1/113*45
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:58:14PM +0100, Michael Gronager wrote:
> My Q and q are meant differently, I agree to your Q vs Q-1 argument,
> but the q is "me as a miner" participating in "a pool" Q. If I
> participate in a pool I pay the pool owner a fraction, e, but at the
> same time I become part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Q = Total pool size (fraction of all mining power) q = My mining
>> power (do.) e = fraction of block fee that pool reserves
>>
>
> Unfortunately the math doesn't work that way. For any Q, a bigger
> Q gives you a higher return. Remember that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15/11/13, 11:32 , Peter Todd wrote:
> alpha = (1/113)*600s/134kBytes = 39.62uS/byte = 24kB/second
>
> Which is atrocious...
alpha = P_fork*t_block/S = 1/113*454000/134 = 29ms/kb
or 272kbit pr second - if you assume this is a bandwidth then I ag
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:47:53AM +0100, Michael Gronager wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Love to see things put into formulas - nice work!
>
> Fully agree on the your fist section: As latency determines maximum
> block earnings, define a 0-latency (bi
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:28:52AM -0700, Daniel Lidstrom wrote:
> Hey Peter, something seems wrong with your above analysis: I think a miner
> would withhold his block not because it leads to a greater probability of
> winning the next one, but because it increases his expected revenue.
>
> Suppo
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:45:41AM +0100, Wladimir wrote:
> Good point - For me its too much clutter to show multiple boxes everywhere
> (we already support unit conversion by changing the dropdown box in the
> amount widget), but I'm going to make the verification dialog show the
> totals in all
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:58:42PM +0100, Michael Gronager wrote:
> > Q=0-> f = 0.0033 BTC/kB Q=0.1 -> f = 0.0027 BTC/kB Q=0.25 -> f
> > = 0.0018 BTC/kB Q=0.40 -> f = 0.0012 BTC/kB
>
> You second list of numbers is an unlikely extreme:
>
> > k = 1mS/kB
>
> The propagation latency in the net
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Peter,
Love to see things put into formulas - nice work!
Fully agree on the your fist section: As latency determines maximum
block earnings, define a 0-latency (big-miner never orphans his own
blocks) island and growing that will of course result
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:34:07PM +0100, Michael Gronager wrote:
> Just a quick comment on the actual fees (checked at blockchain.info) the
> average fee over the last 90 days is actually ~0.0003BTC/txn - so not
> too far behind the theoretical minimum of 0.00037BTC/txn.
How did you get those num
Alan,
I highly recommend that if we make any move towards this, that the
> software show verification in both/all units.
>
> For instance, there should be 3 input fields, one for "BTC", one for
> "mBTC" one for "uBTC". As the user enters a value in one of the fields, it
> would automatically upd
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:37:56AM -0800, Alex Kravets wrote:
> Hi guys,
Alex, you're top-posting and not trimming your replies.
> I've seen many many non-geeks be utterly intimidated and confused by
> 0.000X quantities and/or mBTC & uBTC notation
Yes, people really can't tell any differenc
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:52:21PM +0100, Michael Gronager wrote:
> Last week I posted a writeup: "On the optimal block size and why
> transaction fees are 8 times too low (or transactions 8 times too big)".
>
> Peter Todd made some nice additions to it including different pool sizes
> into the nu
While we're discussing the emotive (though actually of real relevance for
bitcoin user comprehension and sentiment) I couldnt resisnt to add some
trivia reference it is amusing that a currency rarely in history had to
deflate (remove 0s) rather than inflate (add 0s). Viz this hyperinflated
fifty t
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Peter Todd wrote:
> \documentclass{article}
LaTeX moon language to PDF moon language conversion:
https://people.xiph.org/~greg/peter_todd_mining_ev.pdf
--
DreamFactory - Open Source REST
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:01:27PM +, John Dillon wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> > Last week I posted a writeup: "On the optimal block size and why
> > transaction fees are 8 times too low (or transactions 8 times too big)".
> >
> > Peter Todd made some nice add
Hi guys,
I've seen many many non-geeks be utterly intimidated and confused by
0.000X quantities and/or mBTC & uBTC notation
Yes, $10 being rougnly 10,000 Won in South Korean is a great example where
large amounts of units work very well in a major economy.
FWIW, I would prefer the entire
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:53:16PM -0500, Alan Reiner wrote:
> I really like the XBT idea. It makes a lot of sense to match the ISO
I really don't. Just use the SI prefixes.
> currency symbol (though the ISO guys will have to adjust the way they've
> defined the "XBT"). And I do agree that goin
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:07:58PM -0600, Allen Piscitello wrote:
> Obviously the answer is to just display all fees and trading rates as BTC
> or MBTC (.005 MBTC fee? how cheap!). On a more serious note, the
> transition should definitely be thought out well as it could be very
> damaging to
30 matches
Mail list logo
